The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Sixties Fan]

Part 2

Who Dispossessed the Palestinian Peasant?

The Palestinian peasant was indeed being dispossessed, but by his fellow-Arabs: the local sheikh and village elders, the Government tax-collector, the merchants and money-lenders; and, when he was a tenant-farmer (as was usually the case), by the absentee-owner. By the time the season’s crop had been distributed among all these, little if anything remained for him and his family, and new debts generally had to be incurred to pay off the old. Then the Bedouin came along and took their “cut”, or drove the hapless fellah off the land altogether.

This was the “normal” course of events in 19th-century Palestine. It was disrupted by the advent of the Jewish pioneering enterprise, which sounded the death-knell of this medieval feudal system. In this way the Jews played an objective revolutionary role. Small wonder that it aroused the ire and active opposition of the Arab sheikhs, absentee landowners, money-lenders and Bedouin bandits.

Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival

lessons.myjli.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Part 3

Jewish Land Purchases

It is important to note that the first enduring Jewish agricultural settlement in modern Palestine was founded not by European refugees, but by a group of old-time families, leaving the overcrowded Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. (According to the Turkish census of 1875, by that time Jews already constituted a majority of the population of Jerusalem and by 1905 comprised two-thirds of its citizens. The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1910 gives the population figure as 60,000, of whom 40,000 were Jews.)

In 1878 they founded the village of Petah Tikva in the Sharon Plain—a village that was to become known as the “Mother of Jewish Settlements” in Palestine. Four years later a group of pioneering immigrants from Russia settled in Rishon le-Zion. Other farming villages followed in rapid succession.

When considering Jewish land purchases and settlements, four factors should be borne in mind:

1. Most of the land purchases involved large tracts belonging to absentee owners. (Virtually all of the Jezreel Valley, for example, belonged in 1897 to only two persons: the eastern portion to the Turkish Sultan, and the western part to the richest banker in Syria, Sursuk “the Greek.”)
2. Most of the land purchased had not been cultivated previously because it was swampy, rocky, sandy or, for some other reason, regarded as uncultivable. This is supported by the findings of the Peel Commission Report (p. 242): “The Arab charge that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased . . . there was at the time at least of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” (1937)
3. While, for this reason, the early transactions did not involve unduly large sums of money, the price of land began to rise as Arab landowners took advantage of the growing demand for rural tracts. The resulting infusion of capital into the Palestinian economy had noticeable beneficial effects on the standard of living of all the inhabitants.
4. The Jewish pioneers introduced new farming methods which improved the soil and crop cultivation and were soon emulated by Arab farmers.

The following figures show land purchases by the three leading Jewish land-buying organizations and by individual Jews between 1880 and 1935.

Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival

lessons.myjli.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Part 4

Jewish Land Purchases, 1880–1935 (in Dunams1)

Organization	Total Land Acquired	Government Concessions	From Private Owners	Large Tracts2Dunams	Large Tract Percent (approx.)
PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association)	469,407	39,520	429,887	293,545	70
Palestine Land Development Co.	579,492	66,5133	512,979	455,169	90
Jewish National Fund4	836,396
Until 1930			270,084	239,170	90
1931–1947			566,312		50
Individual Jews	432,100		432,100		50

From the above table it will be seen that the proportion of the land purchased from large (usually absentee) owners ranged from about 50 to 90 per cent.
“The total area of land in Jewish possession at the end of June 1947,” writes A. Granott in The Land System in Palestine (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1952, p. 278), “amounted to 1,850,000 dunams, of this 181,100 dunams had been obtained through concessions from the Palestinian Government, and about 120,000 dunams had been acquired from Churches, from foreign companies, from the Government otherwise than by concessions, and so forth. It was estimated that 1,000,000 dunams and more, or 57 per cent, had been acquired from large Arab landowners, and if to this we add the lands acquired from the Government, Churches, and foreign companies, the percentage will amount to seventy-three. From the fellaheen there had been purchased about 500,000 dunams, or 27 per cent, of the total acquired. The result of Jewish land acquisitions, at least to a considerable part, was that properties which had been in the hands of large and medium owners were converted into holding of small peasants.”

Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival

lessons.myjli.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Part 5

The League of Nations Mandate

When the League of Nations conferred the Mandate for Palestine upon Great Britain in 1922, it expressly stipulated that “The Administration of Palestine . . . shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency . . . close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes” (Article 6), and that it “shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.” (Article 11)

British policy, however, followed a different course, deferring to the extremist Arab opposition to the above-mentioned provision of the Mandate. Of some 750,000 dunams of cultivable State lands, 350,000, or nearly half, had been allotted by 1949 to Arabs and only 17,000 dunams to Jews. This was in clear violation of the terms of the Mandate. Nor, ironically enough, did it help the Arab peasants for whose benefit these transactions were ostensibly carried out. The glaring examples of this policy are the case of the Besian lands and that of the Huleh Concession.



Besian Lands

Under the Ghor-Mudawwarra Agreement of 1921, some 225,000 dunams of potentially fertile wasteland in the Besian (Beit Shean) area were handed over to Arab farmers on terms severely condemned not only by Jews but also by such British experts as Lewis French and Sir John Hope-Simpson. More than half of the land was irrigable, and, according to the British experts, eight dunams of irrigated land per capita (or 50–60 dunams per family) were sufficient to enable a family to maintain itself on the land. Yet many farmers received far more than that: six families, of whom two lived in Syria, received a combined area of about 7,000 dunams; four families (some living in Egypt) received a combined area of 3,496 dunams ; another received 3,450 and yet another, 1,350.

Thus the Ghor-Mudawwarra Agreement was instrumental in creating a new group of large landowners. Possessing huge tracts, most of which they were unable to till, these owners began to sell the surplus lands at speculative prices. In his 1930 Report, Sir Hope-Simpson wrote of the Agreement that it had deprived the Government of “the control of a large area of fertile land eminently suited for development and for which there is ample water for irrigation,” and that “the grant of the land has led to speculation on a considerable scale.”



Huleh Area

For twenty years (from 1914 to 1934) the Huleh Concession—some 57,000 dunams of partly swamp-infested but potentially highly fertile land in north-eastern Palestine—was in Arab hands. The Arab concessionaires were to drain and develop the land so as to make additional tracts available for cultivation, under very attractive terms offered by the Government (first Turkish, then British). However, this was never done, and in 1934 the concession was sold to a Jewish concern, the Palestine Land Development Company, at a huge profit. The Government added several onerous conditions concerning the amount of land (from the drained and newly developed tracts) that had to be handed over—without reimbursement for drainage and irrigation costs—to Arab tenant-farmers in the area.

All told, hundreds of millions of dollars were paid by Jewish buyers to Arab landowners. Official records show that in 1933 £854,796 was paid by Jewish individuals and organizations for Arab land, mostly large estates; in 1934 the figure was £1,647,836 and in 1935, £1,699,488. Thus, in the course of only three years £4,202,180 (more than 20 million dollars at the prevailing rate of exchange) was paid out to Arab landowners (Palestine Royal Commission Report, 1937).

To understand the magnitude of the prices paid for these lands, we need only look at some comparative figures. In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semi-arid land; in the same year rich black soil in the state of Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre (U.S. Department of Agriculture).

Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival

lessons.myjli.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Part 6

Effects on Arab Population

In those instances where as a result of such transactions Arab tenant-farmers were displaced (on one year’s notice), compensation in cash or other land was paid, as required by the 1922 Protection of Cultivators Ordinance; the Jewish land-buying associations often paid more than the law required (Pollack and Boehm, The Keren Kayemeth Le-Israel). Of 688 such tenants between 1920 and 1930, 526 remained in agricultural occupations, some 400 of them finding other land (Palestine Royal Commission Report, 1937, Chapter 9, para. 61).

Investigations initiated in 1931 by Mr. Lewis French disposed of the charge that a large class of landless or dispossessed Arab farmers was created as a result of Jewish land purchases. According to the British Government report (Memoranda prepared by the Government of Palestine, London 1937, Colonia No. 133, p. 37), the total number of applications for registration as landless Arabs was 3,271. Of these, 2,607 were rejected on the ground that they did not come within the category of landless Arabs. Valid claims were recognized in the case of 664 heads of families, of whom 347 accepted the offer of resettlement by the Government. The remainder refused either because they had found satisfactory employment elsewhere or because they were not accustomed to irrigated cultivation or the climate of the new areas (Peel Report, Chapter 9, para. 60).

Purchases of land by Jews in the hill country had always been very small and, according to the investigations by Mr. French, of 71 applications by Arabs claiming to be landless, 68 were turned down.



Arab Population Changes Due to Jewish Settlement

Another Arab claim disproved by the facts is that Zionist “colonialism” led to the disruption and ruin of the Arab Palestinian society and economy.

Statistics published in the Palestine Royal Commission Report (p. 279) indicate a remarkable phenomenon: Palestine, traditionally a country of Arab emigration, became after World War I a country of Arab immigration. In addition to recorded figures for 1920-36, the Report devotes a special section to illegal Arab immigration. While there are no precise totals on the extent of Arab immigration between the two World Wars, estimates vary between 60,000 and 100,000. The principal cause of the change of direction was Jewish development, which created new and attractive work opportunities and, in general, a standard of living previously unknown in the Middle East.

Another major factor in the rapid growth of the Arab population was, of course, the rate of natural increase, among the highest in the world. This was accentuated by the steady reduction of the previously high infant mortality rate as a result of the improved health and sanitary conditions introduced by the Jews.

Altogether, the non-Jewish element in Palestine’s population (not including Bedouin) expanded between 1922 and 1929 alone by more than 75 per cent. The Royal Commission Report makes these interesting observations:

The shortage of land is, we consider, due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population, (p. 242) We are also of the opinion that up till now the Arab cultivator has benefited, on the whole, both from the work of the British administration and from the presence of Jews in the country. Wages have gone up; the standard of living has improved; work on roads and buildings has been plentiful. In the Maritime Plains some Arabs have adopted improved methods of cultivation. (p. 241)

Jewish development served as an incentive not only to Arab entry into Palestine from Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and other neighbouring countries, but also to Arab population movements within the country—to cities and areas where there was a large Jewish concentration. Some idea of this phenomenon may be gained from the following official figures:

Changes in towns: The Arab population in predominantly Arab towns rose only slightly (if at all) between the two World Wars: in Hebron—from 16,650 in 1922 to 22,800 in 1943; Nablus—from 15,931 to 23,300; Jenin—from 2,737 to 3,900; Bethlehem—from 6,658 to 8,800. Gaza’s population actually decreased from 17,426 in 1922 to 17,045 in 1931.

On the other hand, in the three major Jewish cities the Arab population shot up during this period, far beyond the rate of natural increase: Jerusalem—from 28,571 in 1922 to 56,400 (97 percent); Jaffa—from 27,437 to 62,600 (134 per cent); Haifa—from 18,404 to 58,200 (216 per cent).

Changes in rural areas: The population of the predominantly Arab Beersheba district dropped between 1922 and 1939 from 71,000 to 49,000 (the rate of natural increase should have resulted in a rise to 89,000). In the Bethlehem district the figure increased from 24,613 to about 26,000 (after falling to 23,725 in 1929). In the Hebron area it went up from 51,345 to 59,000 (the natural increase rate dictated a rise to 72,000).

In contrast to these declines or comparatively slight increases in exclusively Arab-inhabited areas, in the Nazareth, Beit Shean, Tiberias and Acre districts—where large-scale Jewish settlement and rural development was underway—the figure rose from 89,600 in 1922 to some 151,000 in 1938 (by about 4.5 per cent per annum, compared with a natural increase rate of 2.5–3 per cent).

In the largely Jewish Haifa area the number of Arab peasants increased by 8 per cent a year during the same period. In the Jaffa and Ramla districts (heavily Jewish populated), the Arab rural population grew from 42,300 to some 126,000—an annual increase of 12 per cent, or more than four times as much as can be attributed to natural increase (L. Shimony, The Arabs of Palestine, Tel-Aviv, 1947, pp. 422–23).

One reason for the Arab gravitation toward Jewish-inhabited areas, and from neighbouring countries to Palestine, was the incomparably higher wage scales paid there, as may be seen from the following table.

Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival

lessons.myjli.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Part 7

Daily Wage Scales, 1943 (in mils)5

	Unskilled Labour	Skilled Labour
Palestine	220–250	350–600
Egypt	30–50	70–200
Syria	80–100	150–200
Iraq	50	70–200

The capital received by Arab landowners for their surplus holdings was used for improved and intensive cultivation or invested in other enterprises. Turning again to the Report of the Palestine Royal Commission (p. 93), we find the following conclusions: “The large import of Jewish capital into Palestine has had a general fructifying effect on the economic life of the whole country. . . . The expansion of Arab industry and citriculture has been largely financed by the capital thus obtained. . . . Jewish example has done much to improve Arab cultivation. . . . The increase in Arab population is most marked in areas affected by Jewish development.”

During World War II, the Arab population influx mounted apace, as is attested by the UNRWA Review, Information Paper No. 6 (September 1962):

A considerable movement of people is known to have occurred, particularly during the Second World War, years when new opportunities of employment opened up in the towns and on military works in Palestine. These wartime prospects and, generally, the higher rate of industrialization in Palestine attracted many new immigrants from the neighbouring countries, and many of them entered Palestine without their presence being officially recorded.



Land Ownership in 1948

The claim is often made that in 1948 a Jewish minority owning only 5 per cent of the land of Palestine made itself master of the Arab majority, which owned 95 per cent of the land.

In May 1948 the State of Israel was established in only part of the area allotted by the original League of Nations Mandate. 8.6 percent of the land was owned by Jews and 3.3 per cent by Israeli Arabs, while 16.9 per cent had been abandoned by Arab owners who imprudently heeded the call from neighbouring countries to “get out of the way” while the invading Arab armies made short shrift of Israel. The rest of the land—over 70 per cent—had been vested in the Mandatory Power, and accordingly reverted to the State of Israel as its legal heir. (Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Government Printer, p. 257.)

The greater part of this 70 per cent consisted of the Negev, some 3,144,250 acres all told, or close to 50 per cent of the 6,580,000 acres in all of Mandatory Palestine. Known as Crown or State Lands, this was mostly uninhabited arid or semi-arid territory, inherited originally by the Mandatory Government from Turkey. In 1948 it passed to the Government of Israel.

These lands had not been owned by Arab farmers—neither under the British Mandate nor under the preceding regime. Thus it is obvious that the contention that 95 per cent of the land—whether of Mandatory Palestine or of the State of Israel—had belonged to Arabs has absolutely no foundation in fact.

There is perhaps no better way of concluding and summing up this study than to quote from an article entitled Is Israel a Thorn or a Flower in the Near East? by Abdul Razak Kader, the Algerian political writer, now living in exile in Paris (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 1, 1969):

“The Nationalists of the states neighbouring on Israel, whether they are in the government or in business, whether Palestinian, Syrian or Lebanese, or town dwellers of tribal origin, all know that at the beginning of the century and during the British Mandate the marshy plains and stone hills were sold to the Zionists by their fathers or uncles for gold, the very gold which is often the origin of their own political or commercial careers. The nomadic or seminomadic peasants who inhabited the frontier regions know full well what the green plains, the afforested hills and the flowering fields of today’s Israel were like before.

“The Palestinians who are today refugees in the neighbouring countries and who were adults at the time of their flight know all this, and no anti-Zionist propaganda—pan-Arab or pan-Moslem—can make them forget that their present nationalist exploiters are the worthy sons of their feudal exploiters of yesterday and that the thorns of their life are of Arab, not Jewish, origin.”

Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can you know if you didn't read?

Let's take a look...

• 1517: 1st Safed Pogrom
• 1517: 1st Hebron Pogrom,
• 1577: Passover Massacre
• 1660: 2nd Safed Pogrom1834: 2nd Hebron Pogrom
• 1840: Damascus, ritual killings
• 1847: Dayr al-Qamar Pogrom
• 1847: Ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jerusalem
• 1848: 1st Damascus Pogrom
• 1850: 1st Aleppo Pogrom
• 1860: 2nd Damascus Pogrom
• 1862: 1st Beirut Pogrom1874: 2nd Beirut Pogrom
• 1875: 2nd Aleppo Pogrom
• 1882: Homs Massacre
• 1890, 3rd Damascus Pogrom
• 1920 - 1930: Arab riots (incl. "Palestine is Arab land and the Jews are our dogs")
• 1921: 1st Jaffa riots
• 1928: Jewish orphans sold into slavery and forced to convert to Islam by Muslim Brotherhood
• 1929: 3rd Hebron pogrom and 3rd Safed pogrom
• 1933: 2nd Jaffa riots
• 1934: 1st Farhud Massacres
• 1936: 3rd Jaffa riots
• 1936: 2nd Farhud Massacres1941: 3rd Farhud Massacres
• 1942: Jerusalem Grand Mufti openly collaborates with Hitler, plays a part in planning the Final Solution, sends Muslim SS divisions to ro

• does it mean those who call themselves 'Palestinians' didn't live there?

  
  
• und up Jews.

(QUESTION)

So if these atrocities weren't committed by them,
does it mean those who call themselves 'Palestinians' didn't live there?

Indeed.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Let us inject a little realism into the Discussion!
※→ P F Timore, et al,

(RHETORICAL QUESTIONS)

✪ Do you think, for one moment that this consistent whining about the political contrivance called the "NAKBA" (Catastrophe of Palestine) will get milage in any negotiated settlement?

✪ What difference does the "NAKBA" make?

✪ The creation and movement of "refugees," as the Arab Palestinians like to refer to themselves is covered by what binding laws?

(COMMENT)

There are damn few Arab Palestinian "NAKBA" Refugees left from the period 1946 to 1949. Any survivors of that period would be over seventy years old the absolute upper limit to the returnable refugees is approximately 100,000.

And of those people you must weed out:

◈ Those that once had Jordanian Citizenship.​

​

◈ Those are now or have been in the past national security risks, those that threaten public order, public health, or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.​

​

◈ Those who committed offenses that were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​

​

◈ Those guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or those who committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.​

​

◈ Those that introduced propaganda for war.​

​

◈ Those that advocated for national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​

​

◈ Those that advocated or were indoctrinated in the policy that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Those that were members of, or collaborators with known or designated terrorist organizations (past and present).​

​

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or​

(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or​

(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or​

(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or​

(5) He can no longer because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality.​

Once you sift these ineligible, how many do you really have left?

All those engaged in support activities would be filtered out if they advocated "armed struggle" against the Occupation Force and Civil Administration in this discussion group. And for preaching that "armed struggle against the Israelis is legitimate.

Just my observation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Let us inject a little realism into the Discussion!
※→ P F Timore, et al,

(RHETORICAL QUESTIONS)

✪ Do you think, for one moment that this consistent whining about the political contrivance called the "NAKBA" (Catastrophe of Palestine) will get milage in any negotiated settlement?

✪ What difference does the "NAKBA" make?

✪ The creation and movement of "refugees," as the Arab Palestinians like to refer to themselves is covered by what binding laws?

(COMMENT)

There are damn few Arab Palestinian "NAKBA" Refugees left from the period 1946 to 1949. Any survivors of that period would be over seventy years old the absolute upper limit to the returnable refugees is approximately 100,000.

View attachment 599627​

And of those people you must weed out:

◈ Those that once had Jordanian Citizenship.​

​

◈ Those are now or have been in the past national security risks, those that threaten public order, public health, or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.​

​

◈ Those who committed offenses that were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​

​

◈ Those guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or those who committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.​

​

◈ Those that introduced propaganda for war.​

​

◈ Those that advocated for national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​

​

◈ Those that advocated or were indoctrinated in the policy that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Those that were members of, or collaborators with known or designated terrorist organizations (past and present).​

​

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or​

(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or​

(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or​

(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or​

(5) He can no longer because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality.​

Once you sift these ineligible, how many do you really have left?

All those engaged in support activities would be filtered out if they advocated "armed struggle" against the Occupation Force and Civil Administration in this discussion group. And for preaching that "armed struggle against the Israelis is legitimate.

Just my observation.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy excuses, Batman!

 

[Sixties Fan]

Holy excuses, Batman!

Holy Ignorance of Everything, Batman !!!!!

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Let us inject a little realism into the Discussion!
※→ P F Timore, et al,

There is no excuse here. I did not offer an excuse. I will not give an excuse.

If we are to believe that you are making some relevant contribution to the discussion, then we have to assume that you have some realistic way in which the current situation can be overturned and Israel be overrun by Arab Palestinians.

Holy excuses, Batman!

(COMMENT)

We both know that is NOT happening. In fact, each time the Hostile Arab components to this conflict try to accomplish some achievement by means of "Armed Conflict" the Arab Palestinian political-military (POL-MIL) position comes back worse than when they started.

If the Arab Palestinians had approached the issues from a prospectus to attain a peaceful solution, then Arab Palestinians would have come away with the sovereignty - approximately 43% of territory West of the Jordan River. In 70 years of conflict, all the territory they have that could be considered sovereign is Area "A" cut out. That is not progressing in any way shape or form. The state with the greatest measure of Human Development in the Region is, by far, Israel. Not one Arab Nation has yet to ever come close to the contributions Israel has made to the world.

This entire controversy over the "Nakba" (what it is and what it represents) is an excuse alright. But it is the excuse that the Arab Palestinians use along with others in a vain attempt to persuade readers that the Arab Palestinians are being unjustly persecuted by the "Zionists" and some Jewish colonial cabal to hold them down. That dog won't hunt.

You can criticize my argument all you want, but it will not change the consequences the Arab Palestinians will not acknowledge. In fact, they are more the Arab Narcissists than any other breed of loser in the Middle East North African Region.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Let us inject a little realism into the Discussion!
※→ P F Timore, et al,

There is no excuse here. I did not offer an excuse. I will not give an excuse.

If we are to believe that you are making some relevant contribution to the discussion, then we have to assume that you have some realistic way in which the current situation can be overturned and Israel be overrun by Arab Palestinians.


(COMMENT)

We both know that is NOT happening. In fact, each time the Hostile Arab components to this conflict try to accomplish some achievement by means of "Armed Conflict" the Arab Palestinian political-military (POL-MIL) position comes back worse than when they started.

If the Arab Palestinians had approached the issues from a prospectus to attain a peaceful solution, then Arab Palestinians would have come away with the sovereignty - approximately 43% of territory West of the Jordan River. In 70 years of conflict, all the territory they have that could be considered sovereign is Area "A" cut out. That is not progressing in any way shape or form. The state with the greatest measure of Human Development in the Region is, by far, Israel. Not one Arab Nation has yet to ever come close to the contributions Israel has made to the world.

This entire controversy over the "Nakba" (what it is and what it represents) is an excuse alright. But it is the excuse that the Arab Palestinians use along with others in a vain attempt to persuade readers that the Arab Palestinians are being unjustly persecuted by the "Zionists" and some Jewish colonial cabal to hold them down. That dog won't hunt.

You can criticize my argument all you want, but it will not change the consequences the Arab Palestinians will not acknowledge. In fact, they are more the Arab Narcissists than any other breed of loser in the Middle East North African Region.

Most Respectfully,
R

You say "And of those people you must weed out:" Blah, blah, blabla,blah.

How many Palestinians have been adjudicated for any of these offenses? Probably none. Israel issues a blanket denial and throws out some shit to justify it.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Let us inject a little realism into the Discussion!
※→ P F Timore, et al,

Where do you get such ludicrous criteria? adjudicated!

You say "And of those people you must weed out:" Blah, blah, blabla,blah.

How many Palestinians have been adjudicated for any of these offenses? Probably none. Israel issues a blanket denial and throws out some shit to justify it.

(COMMENT)

First: The UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Principles of International Law on Friendly Relations, all use the same phrase and terminology: either --- "hatred that constitutes incitement" OR " the threat or use of force."

Second: The international community has no authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Israel is a state.

There is no requirement for "adjudication" or "court ruling" on the matter.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Second: The international community has no authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Israel is a state.

Immigration is a domestic issue. This is not about immigration. The right to leave and enter one's own country is an international issue.

When people are violently denied their rights, a violent response is justified. If the international community did its job and implemented Resolution 194, there would be no need or reason for violence.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Immigration is a domestic issue. This is not about immigration. The right to leave and enter one's own country is an international issue.

When people are violently denied their rights, a violent response is justified. If the international community did its job and implemented Resolution 194, there would be no need or reason for violence.

Palestinians are being violently denied their rights by Hamas leaders and PA leaders. Go discuss this on another thread, as it has nothing to do with Israel.

Arabs are free to become citizens in Israel. To study, work, vote.

When was the last time Arabs voted in Gaza or the PA?

And why are Arabs escaping Gaza via Israel, if those Arabs are being treated so well by Hamas?

-------

The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 194 (III), resolving that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

------------
There are very few Arab original refugees left from the 1948 war. Most left their homes following their leaders orders that it would all be over in 2 weeks and they could return.

If that resolution were to be truly followed then all Jews expelled from TranJordan in 1925, Hebron in 1929, and Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem in 1948 would have the right to either return to their homes or be compensated for the brutal way the Arabs ethnically cleansed those areas.

You keep trying to fool us and anyone else who may read this for the first time and know nothing about the history of what happened.


Tell Hamas and the PA to stop their hatred and inciting of their population to kill Jews and destroy Israel and you will see the level of peace and progress so many Arabs are achieving not only in Israel but are now gaining in all the Arab countries which have signed the Abraham Accords.

Otherwise the violence and death that Hamas and the PA so much enjoy on their own people is going to continue ad total nauseam .

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

SUBTOPIC: You cannot have it both ways.
※→ P F Timore, et al,

IF you call it an "international" issue, THEN let us keep the discussion in that domain.​

​

IF you are going to call it a "domestic" issue, THEN let us keep the discussion in that domain.​

Second: The international community has no authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Israel is a state.

This is not about immigration. The right to leave and enter one's own country is an international issue.

(COMMENT)

The entry and exit of one's own country (single sovereignty) the action all contained within one continuous boundary, then we are talking about Article 12, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) criteria.

The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.​

The logic you are attempting to use is that the entirety of the territory formerly
to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, is an independent state under Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. Thus, the movement between (as an example) Tel Aviv and Ramallah is under one sovereignty (one's own country). That is a totally erroneous assumption. Israel was established under the Right of Self-Determination.

However, the movement (in the example) between Ramallah (a unique legal entity) and Tel Aviv (Israel) is a transit between two separate jurisdictions. The law that governs movement from Ramallah to Tel Aviv is regulated under the criteria established by Israel and is covered under Article 2(7), UN Charter as a matter of territorial integrity.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.​

But you cannot have it both ways. IF you consider the first instance under Article 12 CCPR, THEN (as one example) the ramifications of that decision mean that there are no Arab Palestinian Refugees in the territory. It was a movement totally within a single jurisdiction.

You must be able to accept the consequences. (Something the Arab Palestinians not noted for.)

When people are violently denied their rights, a violent response is justified. If the international community did its job and implemented Resolution 194, there would be no need or reason for violence.

(COMMENT)

I cannot recall Israel specifically denying any specific "right" - bound under international law (violently or otherwise).

General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) is NOT law. If you want to argue this point then cite me what law you are using.

The use of non-state actors by the Arab Palestinians to pursue activities directed against the State of Israel, with the intention to intimidate or coerce the Israeli people to alter their course of action relative to the protection of the Jewish National Home is, by the very nature and intent, terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

If that resolution were to be truly followed then all Jews expelled from TranJordan in 1925, Hebron in 1929, and Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem in 1948 would have the right to either return to their homes or be compensated for the brutal way the Arabs ethnically cleansed those areas.

I agree with that 100%.

 

[Sixties Fan]

I agree with that 100%.

What a phony response.

Because your belief is that all of those who live in Gaza now are refugees from Israel and that they have the right to return or be compensated.

Sorry, but the ones who need to compensate those few left alive from 1948 are the Arab leaders who told them to leave expecting to destroy the newly independent formed country .

Many Gaza people know it is not true, but you continue to want to destroy Israel and "give it back" to the Arabs, who are from Arabia.

As if they did not have a huge piece of land to return to.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are very few Arab original refugees left from the 1948 war. Most left their homes following their leaders orders that it would all be over in 2 weeks and they could return.

This is completely off the mark. The Nakba started 6 months before the 1948 war. About 300.000 Palestinians were kicked off their land before that war started. The Nakba continued during the war and never stopped.

Only a few % of Palestinians were instructed to leave. Mostly women and children.

Why people left is irrelevant. That is never mentioned in the right to return. People working or studying abroad, or people on vacation or avoiding violence have the right to return.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Because your belief is that all of those who live in Gaza now are refugees from Israel and that they have the right to return or be compensated.

Let me tell you about Najd. (Sometimes it was called Huj.) Najd was a small farm village that predated the Ottoman Empire. Before the 1948 war, Najd was attacked by Zionist forces and the inhabitants were driven into Gaza. Israel created the illagal settlement of Sderot on Najd's ruins.

Sderot was settled by Jews in 1951. According to Walid Khalidi in All That Remains, it along with the settlement of Or ha-Ner, founded in 1957, were established on the village lands of Najd, which means "elevated plain" in Arabic.*

Najd's Palestinian villagers, approximately 620 in 1945, were expelled on 13 May 1948, before Israel was declared a state and before any Arab armies entered Palestine. According to UN Resolution 194 and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13, Section 2, the villagers of Najd have a right to return home to their personal property and to their native village.

Sderot Built on Ashes of Ethnically Cleansed and Defaced Najd

If Americans Knew is dedicated to providing Americans with everything they need to know about Israel and Palestine.

ifamericansknew.org